There Are 2 Types Of People...

A shop opens at 9am...its now 8am...this shop gives away money for free.

There are those people who queue up and have been waiting for hours and hours and understand that yes they could run to the front of the queue and get Money first but if they did then it would undermine the queueing system and if everyone did that then it would turn into chaos and possibly the shop would close or disappear altogether.
Then there are the people who dont care about the queue, dont care if everything turns to chaos but only care about getting their money as soon as possible and if it that causes the shop to shut early or for good, they dont care, as long as get to the shop first and get as much money as possible.

I naively thought that everyone would have the common sense to be the person who queues up, but I realise a lot of people have the opinion of "People are always going to jump the queue, knowing that would you rather be one of the people who jumps the queue and gets the money first or would you rather be one of the people queuing who misses the chance to get money because the shop closes when chaos erupts."

Are you someone who would queue for the greater good of order or would you jump the queue in order to ensure you get your money first.

A shop opens at 9am...its now 8am...this shop gives away money for free.

There are those people who queue up and have been waiting for hours and hours and understand that yes they could run to the front of the queue and get Money first but if they did then it would undermine the queueing system and if everyone did that then it would turn into chaos and possibly the shop would close or disappear altogether.
Then there are the people who dont care about the queue, dont care if everything turns to chaos but only care about getting their money as soon as possible and if it that causes the shop to shut early or for good, they dont care, as long as get to the shop first and get as much money as possible.

I naively thought that everyone would have the common sense to be the person who queues up, but I realise a lot of people have the opinion of "People are always going to jump the queue, knowing that would you rather be one of the people who jumps the queue and gets the money first or would you rather be one of the people queuing who misses the chance to get money because the shop closes when chaos erupts."

Are you someone who would queue for the greater good of order or would you jump the queue in order to ensure you get your money first.

I don't suppose someone is currently studying Game Theory/Nash Equilibriums?

Originally Posted by battlefields

I'd cause the chaos.

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE'S NO MONEY LEFT?"

"Sir, I never said that, can you please keep your voice down, the other customers are getting the wrong idea?"

"DID YOU JUST SAY YOUR CEO TOOK OFF WITH ALL THE MONEY AND IS IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS FREE AND CLEAR?"

"That's not what I said, I said you were making things up, and that you are making the other customers confused?"

"DID YOU JUST SAY YOU'RE TAKING THE LAST FIVE HUNDRED BUCKS IN THE TILL AND GOING ON A CRUISE?"

A famous example of this type of game was called the Stag hunt; in the game two players may choose to hunt a stag or a rabbit, the former providing more meat (4 utility units) than the latter (1 utility unit). The caveat is that the stag must be cooperatively hunted, so if one player attempts to hunt the stag, while the other hunts the rabbit, he will fail in hunting (0 utility units), whereas if they both hunt it they will split the payload (2, 2). The game hence exhibits two equilibria at (stag, stag) and (rabbit, rabbit) and hence the players' optimal strategy depend on their expectation on what the other player may do. If one hunter trusts that the other will hunt the stag, he should hunt the stag; however if he suspects that the other will hunt the rabbit, he should hunt the rabbit. This game was used as an analogy for social cooperation, since much of the benefit that people gain in society depends upon people cooperating and implicitly trusting one another to act in a manner corresponding with cooperation.

A shop opens at 9am...its now 8am...this shop gives away money for free.

There are those people who queue up and have been waiting for hours and hours and understand that yes they could run to the front of the queue and get Money first but if they did then it would undermine the queueing system and if everyone did that then it would turn into chaos and possibly the shop would close or disappear altogether.
Then there are the people who dont care about the queue, dont care if everything turns to chaos but only care about getting their money as soon as possible and if it that causes the shop to shut early or for good, they dont care, as long as get to the shop first and get as much money as possible.

I naively thought that everyone would have the common sense to be the person who queues up, but I realise a lot of people have the opinion of "People are always going to jump the queue, knowing that would you rather be one of the people who jumps the queue and gets the money first or would you rather be one of the people queuing who misses the chance to get money because the shop closes when chaos erupts."

Are you someone who would queue for the greater good of order or would you jump the queue in order to ensure you get your money first.

What about the people who don't go to the store at all, b/c they don't want to be stuck in line w/ a bunch of dickh3ads?